Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T13:03:51.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Procreation by Cloning: Crafting Anticipatory Guidelines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Andrea L. Bonnicksen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

To clone humans is deliberately to generate two or more individuals who share the same nuclear deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Using animals, researchers have performed two basic types of cloning that will eventually yield commercial benefits. Embryo twinning involves separating the individual cells of an embryo and allowing each to cleave for later transfer to a uterus. Cloning by nuclear transfer involves removing the nuclei from embryonic cells or fetal or adult somatic (body) cells and fusing those nuclei with enucleated donor egg cells. Although for the purposes of commercial biotechnology these techniques do not raise undue concern when attempted with animals, embryo twinning, embryo nuclear transfer, fetal somatic cell nuclear transfer, and adult somatic cell nuclear transfer all provoke intense ethical discussions when considered for human use.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 25 , Issue 4 , Winter 1997 , pp. 273 - 282
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wilmut, I., “Viable Offspring Derived from Fetal and Adult Mammalian Cells,” Nature, 385 (1997): 810–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolata, G., “On Cloning Humans, ‘Never’ Turns Swiftly Into ‘Why Not’,” New York Times, Dec. 2, 1997, at 1.Google Scholar
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, Cloning Human Beings: Report and Recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (Rockville: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, June 1997).Google Scholar
Brumby, M. Kasimba, P., “When is Cloning Lawful?,” Journal of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, 4 (1987): At 198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, J.L., “Experimental Cloning of Human Polyploid Embryos Using an Artificial Zona Pellucida,” Paper presented at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Fertility Society, Montreal (Oct. 11–14, 1993), Prog. Supp., at S1 (on file with author).Google Scholar
Jones, H.W. Jr. Edwards, R.G. Seidel, G.E. Jr., “On Attempts at Cloning in the Human,” Fertility and Sterility, 61 (1994): 423–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Hall, , supra note 5.Google Scholar
Bonnicksen, A.L., “Ethical and Policy Issues in Human Embryo Twinning,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 4 (1995): 268–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolberg, R., “Human Embryo Cloning Reported,” Science, 262 (1993): 652–53; and Jones, Edwards, Seidel, , supra note 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voelker, R., “A Clone By Any Other Name is Still an Ethical Concern,” JAMA, 271 (1994): 331–32. See also National Institutes of Health, Final Report of the Human Embryo Research Panel (Bethesda: National Institutes of Health, Sept. 1994), which concluded that twinning for research purposes was “particularly sensitive” and warranted additional ethical review. Id. at 11.Google Scholar
See Jones, Edwards, Seidel, , supra note 6. Stated otherwise, “placing several genetically identical embryos in the uterus will not increase the chances of pregnancy if one embryo with that genome would not have implanted.” Robertson, J.A., “The Question of Human Cloning,” Hastings Center Report, 24, no. 2 (1994): At 7.Google Scholar
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 3, at 67.Google Scholar
McCormick, R.A., “Blastomere Separation: Some Concerns,” Hastings Center Report, 24, no. 2 (1994): 14–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See, for example, Andrews, L.B. Elster, N., “Cross-Cultural Analysis of Policies Regarding Embryo Research” (1994) (unpublished manuscript commissioned for the National Institutes of Health) (on file with author). See National Institutes of Health, supra note 10.Google Scholar
Ethics Committee, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “Ethical Considerations of Assisted Reproductive Technologies,” Fertility and Sterility, 67, no. 5, Supp. 1 (1997): At 4S–5S.Google Scholar
National Advisory Board on Ethics in Reproduction, “Report on Human Cloning Through Embryo Splitting: An Amber Light,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 4 (1994): 251–82; and “NABER Report on Human Cloning Through Embryo Splitting: An Amber Light,” NABER Report, 1, no. 1 (1995): 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
H.B. 2235, 90th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Ill. 1997) (Human Cloning Prohibition Act).Google Scholar
See National Institutes of Health, supra note 10, at 39.Google Scholar
Solter, D., “Lambing by Nuclear Transfer,” Nature, 380 (Mar. 7, 1996): 24–25 (reporting on Willadsen, S.M., “Nuclear Transplantation in Sheep Embryos,” Nature, 320 (Mar. 6, 1986): 63–65).Google Scholar
See National Institutes of Health, supra note 10, at 39; and Wilmut, , supra note 1.Google Scholar
Meng, L. Wolf, D.P., “Nuclear Transfer in the Rhesus Monkey,” Abstracts of the 51st Annual Meeting of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Seattle (Oct. 7–12, 1995), Prog. Supp., at S236 (on file with author).Google Scholar
Campbell, K.H.S., “Sheep Cloned by Nuclear Transfer from a Cultured Cell Line,” Nature, 380 (Mar. 7, 1996): 64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See National Institutes of Health, supra note 10, at 41 n.46; Pennisi, E. Williams, N., “Will Dolly Send in the Clones?,” Science, 275 (Mar. 7, 1997): 1415–16; and Pennisi, E., “After Dolly; A Pharming Frenzy,” Science, 279 (1998): At 648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubenstein, D.S., “Germ-Line Therapy to Cure Mitochondrial Disease: Protocol and Ethics of In Vitro Ovum Nuclear Transplantation,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 4 (1995): At 326; and Solter, , supra note 19, at 24. See also “Whatever Next?,” Economist, Mar. 1, 1997, at 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shushan, A. Schenker, J.G., “The Use of Oocytes Obtained from Aborted Fetuses in Egg Donation Programs,” Fertility and Sterility, 62 (1994): 449–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnicksen, A.L., “Fetal Motherhood: Toward a Compulsion to Generate Lives?,” Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 6 (1997): 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Wilmut, , supra note 1, at 811–12.Google Scholar
See National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Ethics and Theology: A Continuation of the National Discussion on Human Cloning: Hearing before the Subcomm. on Public Health and Safety of the Senate Comm. on Labor and Human Resources, 105th Cong., at 2 (1997) (testimony of Robertson, J.A., professor of law) (hereafter Hearings).Google Scholar
See National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 3, at 66–67. See also Kass, L.R., “The Wisdom of Repugnance,” New Republic, June 2, 1997, at 17–26.Google Scholar
National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 3, at 67.Google Scholar
See id. at 72–74.Google Scholar
See id. at 74.Google Scholar
See id. at 74–75.Google Scholar
See id. at 95; and Cohen, S., “What Is a Baby? Inside America's Unresolved Debate About the Ethics of Cloning,” Washington Post Magazine, Oct. 12, 1997, at 15.Google Scholar
See Hearings, , supra note 29, at 4 (testimony of J.A. Robertson).Google Scholar
Office of Government and Media Relations, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, “ASRM Statement on Human Cloning Through Nuclear Transplantation” (June 5, 1997).Google Scholar
H.R. 922, 105th Cong. (1997) (Human Cloning Research Prohibition Act).Google Scholar
For citations, see National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 3, at 104.Google Scholar
See Andrews, Elster, , supra note 14, at 30 (citing Danish Law 353 (1987)); and “Law No. 35/1988 of 22 November 1988 on Assisted Reproduction Procedures,” International Digest of Health Legislation, 40 (1989): 82–93 (citing Law on Assisted Reproduction Procedures, (B.O.E. 1988, 35) (Sp.)).Google Scholar
“German Embryo Protection Act (October 24th, 1990): Gesetz zum Schutz von Embryonen,” Human Reproduction, 6 (1991): 605–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990,” International Digest of Health Legislation, 42 (1991): At 70 (citing Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 1990, ch. 3.(3)(d) (U.K.)).Google Scholar
See Andrews, Elster, , supra note 14, at 77; and Masood, E., “Cloning Technique Reveals Legal Loophole,” Nature, 385 (Feb. 27, 1997): 757.Google Scholar
See Masood, , id.Google Scholar
See Andrews, Elster, , supra note 14, at 50, 71.Google Scholar
See Knoppers, B.M., “Cloning: An International Comparative Overview” (1997) (unpublished manuscript commissioned for the National Bioethics Advisory Commission) (on file with author). See National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies, Proceed with Care: Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies (Ottawa: Minister of Government Services Canada, 1993): At 741.Google Scholar
Ethics Advisory Board, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Appendix: HEW Support of Research Involving Human In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979): At 173, 182.Google Scholar
Warnock, M., A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985): At 73.Google Scholar
See National Institutes of Health, supra note 10.Google Scholar
H.R. 922, 105th Cong. (1997); H.R. 923, 105th Cong. (1997); and S. 368, 105th Cong. (1997).Google Scholar
See Haglund, K., “Research Coalition Promises No Human Cloning by Members,” Journal of NIH Research, 9 (Nov. 1997): 20–21.Google Scholar
For citations of some bills, see National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 3, at 104.Google Scholar
S.B. 1344, 1997–1998 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 1997) (enacted) (Human Cloning).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Right (visited Dec. 23, 1997) <http://www.unesco.org/ibc/uk/genome/projet/index.htm>. The Declaration was passed unanimously by the United Nations Economic and Social Council's 186 member states. See “UN Weighs in on Cloning,” Science, 278 (1997): 1407..+The+Declaration+was+passed+unanimously+by+the+United+Nations+Economic+and+Social+Council's+186+member+states.+See+“UN+Weighs+in+on+Cloning,”+Science,+278+(1997):+1407.>Google Scholar
Europ. T.S. No. 168, art. 1.1. See also “UN Weighs in on Cloning,” id.Google Scholar
See, for example, National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 3, at 95–103.Google Scholar
See Andrews, L.B., “The Current and Future Legal Status of Cloning” (1997) (unpublished manuscript commissioned for the National Bioethics Advisory Commission) (on file with author). See id. at 35–36. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine distributed the following definition to legislative sponsors of anti-cloning laws: Human cloning means the duplication of an existing human being by transferring the nucleus of a differentiated, somatic cell into an oocyte in which the nucleus has been removed, and implanting the resulting product for gestation and subsequent birth. Office of Government and Media Relations, supra note 37.Google Scholar
See Rubenstein, , supra note 24.Google Scholar
See Hearings, supra note 29, at 4 (testimony of Robertson, J.A.).Google Scholar
See National Bioethics Advisory Commission, supra note 3, at 90–94; and Andrews, , supra note 59, at 50–53.Google Scholar
See, for example, Quill, T.E. Cassel, C.K. Meier, D.E., “Proposed Clinical Criteria for Physician-Assisted Suicide,” N. Engl. J. Med., 327 (1992): 1380–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
117 Cong. Rec. 12751 (daily ed. Apr. 29, 1971) (testimony of Watson, J.D., “Moving Toward the Clonal Man: Is This What We Want?”).Google Scholar